wikialityfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Sultangris
Recent new articles wow i wish i was as cool as you sultan. Liberty 11:10, 5 August 2006 (PDT) yawn Ok, I'm bored. Let's go back to writing articles. Liberty 14:01, 6 August 2006 (PDT) "No such thing as meaningless crap articles" What do you mean by that, exactly? What do you see as the point of this Wiki? Is it just about adding content, regardless of whether it has any meaning? Liberty 01:32, 7 August 2006 (PDT) ExactlySultangris 01:33, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :What does that have to do with Stephen Colbert or truthiness? Liberty 01:34, 7 August 2006 (PDT) Nothing to do with Stephen Colbert at all. And well, whatever you feel in your gut about what it has do do with truthiness.Sultangris 01:37, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :Can you explain the "badass articles that shouldn't be fucked with" tag? Every page you edit says at the bottom that "all contributions to Wikiality may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." For a wiki to work, you have to be ok with that. Liberty 01:40, 7 August 2006 (PDT) oh, im okay with people editing them, in fact some were edited and i didnt revert, but im not ok with people simply overriding the article, like how you keep insisting of redirecting the jesus page to the jesus christ page, or how you made an article titled Death and redirected(and erased) the DEATH article to it.Sultangris 01:44, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :It's because your articles were all about yourself, or were simply non-sensical. A lot of us who have been working on this project are trying to make a Stephen Colbert version of Wikipedia, basically, so super-random stuff, like the article on land, doesn't seem to have a purpose, and references to ourselves in articles don't seem very funny. Can you see where I'm coming from on that? Liberty 01:49, 7 August 2006 (PDT) You know that the article Sultangris, Trafficker of Souls, Consumer of Stars, and Slightly Ornery really isnt about me right? Any what do you mean by 'Stephen Colbert version of Wikipedia'?Sultangris 01:53, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :Basically, the whole idea behind the project is behind something that he said a week ago on The Colbert Report. He was talking about how he loves Wikipedia because, if you get enough people to agree with you, you can make anything true. He called this phenomenon "Wikiality." Now, of course that's not how Wikipedia actually works, but the idea behind this project is to be that Wiki that Colbert was talking about. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia of the world according to Colbert, where feeling a thing makes it so. That's why things that have nothing whatever to do with The Colbert Report raise eyebrows. Liberty 02:04, 7 August 2006 (PDT) ::That's exactly how Wikipedia works; it's basically run on the concepts of tyranny by majority, might makes right, cult of personality, and a cabal of administrators. Colbert was criticising the Bush administration first and foremost but he was also making a scathing criticism of Wikipedia at the same time. If you didn't realise that then you really shouldn't be here. - 81.179.69.230 00:12, 8 August 2006 (PDT) Clearly the Wiki Stephen Colbert was talking about isn't the world according to Colbert; to quote both him and you, this Wiki is about truth by consensus (read as: BS) so, as long as me and Sultangris continue to make articles that the majority agree on (or just don't care about, which is really what their reaction should be), there's no reason to put them up for deletion (especially since they won't ever get deleted). I suppose you could try to make this a Wiki about Stephen Colbert if you want, but you could just, you know, use Wikipedia for that.Bruno 02:10, 7 August 2006 (PDT) Exactly.Sultangris 02:27, 7 August 2006 (PDT) Are you two? It seems like everywhere you've gone on the Interwebs, you've pissed people off. Even Wikipedia has issues with you. --Paranoia 04:24, 7 August 2006 (PDT) Ofcourse they do, im a loyal defender of truthiness and since wikipedia isnt, theyd have issues with me wouldnt they? Now comes the question of why you are comparing yourself to wikiedia....perhaps you are not a true defender of truthiness...Sultangris 04:28, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :Or it might have something to do with the pr0n0graphic images you post. Just a thought.--Buddydave 07:42, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :Wikipedia also has issues with Stephen Colbert I believe. - 81.179.69.230 00:13, 8 August 2006 (PDT) Ofcourse the do, and everybody loves pr0n0graphic images.Sultangris 10:58, 9 August 2006 (PDT) Funny thing called "COPA" You DO realise that if Wikiality.com decided to report you to your ISP for posting pornographic images, you could be tried under the Child Online Protection Act? $50,000 and 6 months for each picture you posted. Maybe you should THINK before you ACT. --Paranoia 08:13, 7 August 2006 (PDT) The Child Online Protection Act has been blocked multiple times. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings against enforcing the law, because it was likely to be unconsitutional. Why are you threatening people with laws that aren't enforced? EDIT: Not only that, but COPA is mostly geared toward websites, requiring them to make sure minors can't access pornographic material by restricting the sites access to minors. So, the burden would actually fall on Wikiality.com, in this case, for not requiring verification on age, and/or not banning pornographic material.Bruno 09:52, 7 August 2006 (PDT) :What about the Communications Decency Act? That's still in effect. It criminalises things transmitted "by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Also, Section 230 of this bill would handily keep Wikiality from facing any of the heat. --Paranoia 13:05, 7 August 2006 (PDT) A good way to get rid of the First Amendment is to act as if the various statutes violating it are actually laws. doggies 13:23, 7 August 2006 (PDT) Do you really think you can get me in trouble for putting porn on here?Sultangris 11:07, 9 August 2006 (PDT) :Erm... I just banned you. If that counts. --Paranoia 12:00, 9 August 2006 (PDT) HAHAHA!!! the only than that does is stop me from using my name, do you really think you can stop me from editing? --Sultangris 154.35.1.12 12:06, 9 August 2006 (PDT) Things have changed a bit since August. I vaguely remember you. Enjoy reading Wikiality. Liberty 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)